On September 27, 2017, I was watching Muhammed Yunus being interviewed on Democracy Now about the alleged "ethnic cleansing" of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma. I was startled to hear him state:
"She stood for democracy. She stood for human rights. She stood for all the human values you can think about. Her speeches are filled with these values…. Now she comes to power, and we see a completely different face from the peace Nobel laureate.”
Muhammed Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, about his friend, Aung San Suu Kyi, also a Nobel
Peace Prize recipient, interview on DemocracyNow.org, on September 27, 2017.

Previously on this forum I have contended that the activity of politics inherently contains the tendency to corrupt the practitioner. I suggest that the action and inaction of Aung San Suu Kyl, in power, is an example of the reality of the tendency. It also shows the substantive difference between a value and a good.

Then there is this comment for reflection in view of the tragedy of the Rohingya people. I have added the underlining:

“The good, as he came to understand it, is what is uniquely and incomparably appropriate to a given setting. It observes a certain scale, displays a certain proportion. It fits, and the senses can recognize this fit… Values, on the other hand, are a universal coin without a proper place or an inherent limit… Values undermine the sense of due proportion and substitute an economic calculus. What is good is what is always good; a value prevails only when it outranks a competing value.”
From David Cayley’s Introduction to The Rivers North of the Future: The Testament of Ivan Illich

This morning I finished reading David Cayley's book on the thought of Ivan Illich, who frequently referred to himself as an historian, not a philosopher ot theologian. He was profoundly inflenced by the parable of the Good Samaritan, about which I will write later.

The short story "The Death of Ivan Illich" by Leo Tolstoy makes the point that money (and influence) can't buy real love. By the end of the story that point is brought out in an excellent and artistic manner. Also it depicts how friendship is an Intrinsic Value, greatly to be treasured.

Cayley is correct that the "good" is fitting and singular - in the sense that there is one way to be good with respect to the specific concept (or context) but there are many ways to be bad and mediocre. This is demonstrated in the algebra of Value Science, as derived by Robert S. Hartman in his Formal Axiology.

He is correct that values can be rank ordered. He is also right that good is a special value. It is that instance of fulfillment of a concept's meaning by a thing or situation which falls under that concept. The thing (or the situation) is an instance or case of that concept. Take, for example, the concept: ball. If this particular ball has all the properties that you suppose a ball to have, in your mental picture of "a ball", then you are justified in calling this item "a good ball." If it only has some of them, then you may refer to it as "a valuable ball" or "as a ball having some value."
For further details see the early chapters of Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course. http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf